shmenguin wrote:last year showed that the length of the full season can be pretty arbitrary when it comes to the ultimate cup winner.

Yeah, how about that?

I know someone at work who's a SoCal native and the most legit, old-school Kings fan I've ever met. He's still in shock at the machine-like performance the Kings put on the playoffs after squeaking into the playoffs.

Gaucho wrote:Bob McKenzie ‏@TSNBobMcKenzieWe're also hearing the NHLPA proposal will work off a percentage of HRR -- as requested by NHL -- and not a guaranteed dollar amount.

That's good.

Its a start alot can go wrong from here. But i truly honestly believe the owners want the dollars and cents worked out first and foremost. Also as hardlined as the seems on the contracting issues, they will soften as long as the dollars and cents work out. But the will hold onto the idea the cap circumeventions deals must stop. Thats the 5% varience clause.

Owner will let the players keep the 27/7 and will allow contract be longer than 5 years.

I refuse the get optimistic about anything positive. Fehrs math never seems to add up like it looks. It looks 50/50 but all his growth factors runs it up to alot more.

To add some perspective, that amounts to $1.2-million per team per season. If that number is correct, then I don't see why those terms wouldn't be agreed to.

You never know...the NFL, which makes a lot more, had the officials on strike for just $100,000 a team.

Its all in how you break down the numbers. The owners already said they would pay 211 million, thats 7.03 over 5 years, add that to the 182 the players want in addition thats, 6.03 over 5 year. In total 13.6 million paid by each team over 5 years. Sounds like alot of coin to me. Some teams just don't have that lying around. But we'll see how Gary and Company look at this.

But all in all, i have to admit its not unreasonable for the players to want their existing contracts be paid in full. If you offer a player a contract you should be ready to pay them in full.

no name wrote:But all in all, i have to admit its not unreasonable for the players to want their existing contracts be paid in full. If you offer a player a contract you should be ready to pay them in full.

I'm fine with that, as long as this year they get paid a % based on number of games in the shortened season. I disagree with PA's initial demand that owners are to be required to cover the entire damage.

no name wrote:But all in all, i have to admit its not unreasonable for the players to want their existing contracts be paid in full. If you offer a player a contract you should be ready to pay them in full.

This is the part I absolutely don't understand. Did some of the owners offer those big 12-year-contracts with the soon to be expiring CBA in mind, ie with the intention of not honoring them anyway?

To add some perspective, that amounts to $1.2-million per team per season. If that number is correct, then I don't see why those terms wouldn't be agreed to.

You never know...the NFL, which makes a lot more, had the officials on strike for just $100,000 a team.

Its all in how you break down the numbers. The owners already said they would pay 211 million, thats 7.03 over 5 years, add that to the 182 the players want in addition thats, 6.03 over 5 year. In total 13.6 million paid by each team over 5 years. Sounds like alot of coin to me. Some teams just don't have that lying around. But we'll see how Gary and Company look at this.

But all in all, i have to admit its not unreasonable for the players to want their existing contracts be paid in full. If you offer a player a contract you should be ready to pay them in full.

Even if you take $211+182-million, it's less than half the additional revenue the owners would receive from a 50/50 split. Neither Bettman nor Fehr are idiots, contrary to popular belief, and that means they understand what this means for the NHL moving forward. Sure, it's a fair chunk of money over the next 5 years BUT it sets the bar moving forward. When the next CBA runs out, the 50/50 framework will already be in place and that should mean no squabbling about money.

Gaucho wrote:

no name wrote:But all in all, i have to admit its not unreasonable for the players to want their existing contracts be paid in full. If you offer a player a contract you should be ready to pay them in full.

This is the part I absolutely don't understand. Did some of the owners offer those big 12-year-contracts with the soon to be expiring CBA in mind, ie with the intention of not honoring them anyway?

That is the implication, and one of the biggest supporting pieces was how quickly the ownership in Minnesota stood up and said "well, we can't afford these contracts" right after throwing huge deals at Suter & Parise.